The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...
Full Story

Terri Tanna wrote:"SO SADLY, Paul Ryan, our vice presidential candidate, botched the debate by his embarrassing ignorance in two key areas:1- foreign policy2- macroeconomics and U.S. economic policy."How could someone such as Ryan lose so ignominiously to Mr. Gaffe. More scary -- Ryan knows infinitely more about macroeconomics than does Willard, who has never studied it seriously."====<quoted text>I listened to the debate with an Opus Dei group.Everyone agreed: RYAN LOST THE ENTIRE ROMAN CATHOLIC VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICANS -- not just conservative Roman Catholics but all Roman Catholics.Our numbers cannot be ignored.="Since the 1960s, the percentage of Americans who are Catholic has stayed roughly the same, at around 25%,due in large part to increases in the Latino population over the same period."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...=Catholicism by stateRank State %[30] Largest Denomination1 Rhode Island 63 Catholic2 PENNSYLVANIA 533 Massachusetts 444 NEW JERSEY 395 CALIFORNIA 376 NEW YORK 367 New Hampshire 358 Connecticut 349 TEXAS 3210 ARIZONA 3111 Illinois 30Louisiana14 WISCONSIN 29 Catholic15 Nebraska 2816 FLORIDA 26New MexicoVermont=At least Roman Catholics are not the major bloc in any of the swing states.

So easy bake oven thinks Biden's bizarre,psychotic behavior of constantly rolling his eyes,throwing his head back and interrupting was impressive enough to stop Romney's continued rise and Obama's death spiral?LOL"Stuff's gettin better"2012

<quoted text>When you claim anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, I say bullchit. That is a direct response. Matter of fact, that's as direct as it gets! pigeon

Not only a citizen, but a Natural Born Citizen.

U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.… The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."

The above case, Farrar, was the one that the US Supreme Court turned down the birther appeals of. That means that the ruling in Georgia stands.

Barack Obama met with the Queen of England.He asked her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficientgovernment? Are there any tips you can give me?"..."Well," said the Queen, "the most important thing is to surroundyourself with intelligent people."Obama frowned, and then asked, "But how do I know the people aroundare really intelligent?"The Queen took a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy, you just ask them toanswer an intelligent riddle."The Queen pushed a button on her intercom."Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"Tony Blair walked into the room and said, "Yes, Your Majesty?"The Queen smiled and said, "Answer me this please, Tony. Your motherand father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not yoursister. Who is it?"Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answered, "That would be me.""Yes! Very good," said the Queen.Obama went back home to ask Joe Biden the same question. "Joe, answerthis for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It's notyour brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?""I'm not sure," said Biden. "Let me get back to you on that one." Hewent to his advisers and asked everyone, but none could give him ananswer.Finally, Biden ran in to Sarah Palin out eating one night. Bidenasked, "Sarah, can you answer this for me? Your mother and fatherhave a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"Sarah Palin answered right back, "That's easy, it's me!"Biden smiled, and said, "Thanks!" Then, he went back to speak withObama. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to thatriddle. It's Sarah Palin!"Obama got up, stomped over to Biden, and angrily yelled into hisface, "No! You idiot! It's Tony Blair!"

Either you or Rogue came up with that one a week ago. Both senile, I guess. Anyhow, I agree it was funny the first time, but the second and soon the third time once more from Rogue, NOT.

<quoted text>There are some posts from flappers that I don't read, that is correct. jacqazz, you do as much name calling as anyone you hypocrite. jacqazz, the plane I'm on is giving all you anti-America flappers as much crap as you dish out. Can you dig it? I thought that you could. LMAO Remind me again, why you are even here? pig-eon

For the 100th time, give me an example of any name-calling, save for a few "stupid" here and there. Name-calling that resembles buttflapper and dumbazzbastard. C'mon.

<quoted text>If you understood the joke, you would think it was funny. Except that it applies to you, so you may not.FYI, Churchill's rapier-like witty repartees were published, so witty and intelligent were they, and that was one of them. I shan't bother wasting another one on the likes of you.

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 Â– Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengersÂ’ position that Mr. Obama is not a Â“natural born CitizenÂ” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.Â… The petitionersÂ’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a Â‘natural born CitizenÂ’ regardless of the status of his father."

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that Â‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.Â‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.Â… Contrary to PlaintiffÂ’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (Â“Indiana CourtÂ”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).Â… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.Â… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."

The above case, Farrar, was the one that the US Supreme Court turned down the birther appeals of. That means that the ruling in Georgia stands.

Yeah sure, that's what the law says ... but in Birfistan there is a higher authority than the law (it involves ruby slippers and repeating your deepest wish over and over)

<quoted text>Not only a citizen, but a Natural Born Citizen.U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: "No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.… The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father."Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: "However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.[The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: "Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise"Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: "In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive."The above case, Farrar, was the one that the US Supreme Court turned down the birther appeals of. That means that the ruling in Georgia stands.

Brainchild, did you notice the dates of those cases...2008 & 2012. Gee, think they were influenced by Omama? LMAO pigeon

[from this great nation's most conservative metropolitan newspaper]==Romney's abortion answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind=Due to my afternoon deadline I can't tell you for sure what Mitt Romney's position on abortion was as of Thursday night.

But, treating it like a late game on the West Coast, I can give you the latest updates.

Tuesday: Romney told the Des Moines Register editorial board, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." Banning abortion is always high on the agenda of many conservatives, and some quickly registered dismay and disappointment — though surely not surprise — at Romney's evident lack of vehemence and resolve on an issue that truly animates them.

Wednesday: "I'm a pro-life candidate," Romney told the audience at a campaign rally. "I'll be a pro-life president." He added that he'd "remove funding for Planned Parenthood" and block federal aid to international agencies if they so much as provide abortion counseling services.

All settled? Well, no. Romney's careerlong meanderings on abortion suggest not just irresolution, which is familiar to many who have struggled with this issue, but hypocrisy and cynicism — a "nice doggy" approach in which he says whatever he has to in order to sidle safely past easily riled voters.

His numerous, contradictory statements on the issue are all over the Web, most comprehensively in a 13,000-word analysis -- The Conversion -- published in August by Slate's William Saletan that demonstrates Romney's evolution from pro-choice to pro-life was no simple conversion, but a series of calculated pivots.

Behold:

1994: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it.... You will not see me wavering on that."

1999: "When I am asked if I am I pro-choice or pro-life, I say I refuse to accept either label."

2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice. I have never felt comfortable with the labels associated with the abortion issue."

2002: "When asked, will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, I give an unequivocal answer:'Yes'... I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate.… Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

2005: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."

2007: "(In 2004, as governor of Massachusetts) the conclusion I reached was that ... we should therefore allow our state to become a pro-life state.... I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice, because I didn't feel I was pro-choice."

2007: I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion.... I'd be delighted to sign that bill."

2008: "On every decision I made as governor, I came down on the side of life."

2011: "Absolutely!" (In response to the question asking if he'd support a constitutional amendment saying human life begins conception.)

2012: "What I'd like to see happen would be for the Supreme Court to say look, we're going to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states the authority to decide whether they want to have abortion or not."

2012: "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother." ("health" later retracted)

What's Romney's position on abortion as of Thursday afternoon? Evidently the same position he's always held: He'll say and do whatever he thinks will win him the most votes.

Pro-choice? Pro-life? Better to describe it as firmly, consistently pro-Mitt.

Romney's abortion remarks bring issue back into focus Mitt Romney says abortion wouldn't be part of his legislative agenda, but later says he would fight it if he's elected (LA Times)

William Saletan (Slate): The Conversion -- How, when, and why Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion and Romney’s Abortion “Agenda”-- Don’t fall for his insinuation that he won’t restrict abortion. It’s full of weasel words. and The Pro-life Case for Planned Parenthood

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.